Briefing Session for

1. Briefing Session for Members of IRC and DRC on Performance Appraisal and Appointment Exercises of Academic & Teaching Staff 2012/13 October 2012

2. Overview • Features of Performance Appraisal System • Roles in Appraisal & Review Process • Departmental/ Institute Review Committees • - Committee Structures & Guidelines • - Performance Appraisal Process • - Review of Applications for Reappointment, • Superannuation, Promotion & Migration • Appraisal and Review Schedule 2012/13

3. Features of the • Performance Appraisal System

4. Scope & Objectives • Scope: • Academic Staff at Associate Professor and below Ranks; and Teaching Staff • (Performance appraisal of Chair Professors and • Professors are dealt with seperately) • Objectives: • Developmental: promote continuous development, foster mutual understanding between staff members & Heads on development needs, aspirations & concerns • Evaluative: provide information for the purposes of making personnel decisions by the Institute, i.e., • reappointment, promotion, conversion to • superannuable terms, migration, pay review, etc.

5. Appraisal Approach • Three Core Performance Domains • Holistic approach • - recognise all aspects of performance • Evidenced-based approach • - objective and equitable assessment • - qualitative and quantitative evidences • 4-level performance grading system

6. Forms of Performance & Sources of Evidences Teaching staff are mainly appraised in respect of Teaching & Service

7. Performance Descriptors Teaching & Curriculum Development

8. Performance Descriptors Research & Scholarly Activities

9. Performance Descriptors Service

10. Roles in Appraisal & Review Processes

11. Roles of Appraisee • Documents to submit for review: • Summary of Susmission by Appraisee • Self-assessment report covering past 3 years (max 5 pages) or contract period for reappointment • Updated CV (max 20 pages) • ‘Best’ refereed scholarly work produced reasonably recently (4 pieces for Associate Professor or equivalent ranks, or 2 pieces for Assistant Professor and equivalent rank) • (optional) no more than 3 reference reports from nominated referees • Appraisee should provide evidences of performance/ achievements/ contribution

12. Roles of Review Committees

13. Roles of Deans and Heads • DRC Review • Head of Department to provide developmental feedback based on performance appraisal prepared by DRC • Post-IRC Review & Final decision • If performance ratings are revised, Faculty Dean to communicate IRC’s considerations to the staff concerned via HoD; and arrange face-to-face meetings to follow-up on cases requiring significant improvement. • If final appointment decision is different from DRC’s recommendation, Faculty Dean to communicate IRC’s consideration to HoD for relay to staff concerned.

14. Committee Structures & Guidelines

15. DRC Composition • Chairperson: Head of Department • Appointed Members • 1 Chair Professor/ Professor (or Associate Professor if there is no Chair Professor/ Professor) of the same Department appointed by the Faculty Dean • 1 Chair Professor/ Professor from outside the Faculty (to which the Department belongs) appointed by the President • Elected Members • 1 academic staff member elected from within the Department • 1 academic staff member elected from other Departments within the Faculty • (optional) Nominated Member • 1 member nominated by the appraisee • Quorum • The attendance of 4 DRC Members, not including the Nominated Member, shall constitute a quorum

16. IRC Composition • Chairperson • Vice President (Academic) • Members • Vice President (Research and Development) • Faculty Deans • 1 Chair Professor/ Professor appointed by the President • 1 Academic Staff member at Associate Professor rank or above elected from and by the Academic Board • Co-opted Member(s)- optional • External member(s) may be invited by the Vice President (Academic) • Quorum • the attendance of 5 IRC Members (excluding the co-opted Member) shall constitute a quorum

17. Committee Membership guidelines • An appraisee/ applicant for a particular Exercise should not serve as a Member of the DRC for the review of that Exercise. • If the Head of Department (HoD) applies for a particular Exercise, his/her Chairmanship will be replaced by another Academic Staff of appropriate rank to be appointed by the Faculty Dean, while the HoD will remain as Chairperson of DRC for all other cases in the Exercise. • A DRC Member should not serve as a Member of the IRC for the same Exercise. • A DRC/IRC Member shall not act as the Nominated Member of an appraisee of the same Exercise.

18. Code of Practices of Committees • Should not write reference letters for any staff members whose cases they will consider in DRC • Confidentiality • Must treat all matters pertaining to an appraisee’s application in the strictest confidence • Shall not reveal any aspect of the Committee’s deliberation even after the conclusion of the review. • Must not discuss any applications or the Committee’s recommendations with persons other than Members of the Committee.

19. Performance Appraisal by DRC

20. Performance Appraisal by DRC • Guidelines: • follow the Guidance Notes on Performance Appraisal System and adopt a holistic approach to reviewing the performance of the appraisee in respect of the 3 performance domains, namely, (i) Teaching and Curriculum Development, (ii) Research and Scholarly Activities, and (iii) Service • invite comments from the appraisee’s Nominated Member (if any) when conducting performance appraisal on the appraisee concerned • may interview the appraisee if deemed necessary

21. Performance Appraisal Report (1) • For each appraisee, DRC should: • prepare a Performance Appraisal Report taking reference • to the performance descriptors; • give a performance rating (i.e., Outstanding / Good / Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory) for each domain and an overall performance rating, providing substantiated assessments and justifications for the ratings; • Make recommendations and development targets/ plans

22. Performance Appraisal Report (2) • The performance ratings should be supported with a written evaluation of the performance based on evidences observed. In particular, • (a)   an “outstanding” rating should be supported by observations of a level of performance which demonstrates leadership and • impact through the achievements/ contributions made in • the domain concerned; • (b) A “good” rating should be supported by observations of a level of performance which demonstrates high level of competence/ effectiveness/ contribution and potential for further advance in the domain concerned; • (c) A “satisfactory” rating should be supported by observations of a level of performance which demonstrates basic level of competence in meeting the requirements of the domain concerned with indications of areas with improvement needs; • (d) An “unsatisfactory” rating should be supported by observations of a level of performance which is below expected standard for the post with respect to the domain concerned.

23. Performance Appraisal Report (3) • Every Member of DRC present should sign the completed • Performance Appraisal Report. • An Appraisal Report should be signed by at least 4 Members who • have participated in the review to be considered representing the • formal decision of the DRC. • After DRC Meeting • Each appraisee will be given 3 working days to respond or add • comments to the completed Performance Appraisal Report via the • Head of Department. The appraisee has to sign on his/her • Performance Appraisal Report.

24. Review of Applications for Re-appointment, Superannuation, Promotion & Migration

25. Types of Considerations Final Recommendation

26. External Review for Promotion to Associate Professor • Applications for promotion to Associate Professor that are recommended by DRC will be subject to 3 independent external assessments. • Members of DRC (excluding the Nominated Member) will meet again to review the assessment reports and make further recommendations for consideration by IRC.

27. Guidelines for DRC (1) • Considerations should focus on the staff performance in making recommendation on various Appointment-related Exercises • Should Head of the Department has other considerations (e.g., funding availability, staffing requirement, etc.) that should be brought up to the DRC in making the recommendation , s/he should provide relevant information to DRC and record the considerations in the Recommendation Form to explain DRC’s decision.

28. Guidelines for DRC (2) • For Re-appointment: • A 3-year contract is normally awarded to a member of Academic Staff being rated “Good” and above. A contract of 2-3 years may be offered to a member of Teaching Staff being rated “Good” and above. • Contract staff requiring improvement in performance may be offered a one-year extension of their existing contract for the purpose of observation.

29. Guidelines for DRC (3) • Voting Decisions • Members of DRC (excluding the Nominated Member) are required to cast secret vote on each appraisee after deliberation. Chairperson has a casting vote. • The Recommendation Form should record the voting result and written statement recording the gist of assessments and rationale for the collective decision including minority views as appropriate. • A affirmative vote of majority, i.e., 3 out of 5 eligible Members of DRC, regardless of the actual number of Members present, is required in making a decision in support of the application • Members are discouraged to abstain from voting

30. Final Review by IRC (1) • Pre-IRC Meeting preparation: • Before IRC conducts its formal Meetings, • Members will review all documents prepared by DRC and appraisees. • IRC will identify cases which it considers not fully substantiated/ supported by DRC documentation • (i) firstly by the relevant Faculty Dean as a Member of • IRC; • (ii) then by all other IRC Members. • For cases requiring clarifications, Chairpersons of DRC will be asked to provide written supplementary information.

31. Final Review by IRC (2) • IRC Meeting • In reviewing the applications for reappointment, superannuation, promotion, migration, IRC will consider DRC’s full assessment (including supplementary information, if any) on the appraisee’s performance. • IRC’s final recommendation will take into account DRC’s recommendation, staff performance, the criteria required for the respective exercises as well as any other considerations brought up to it via the Faculty Dean/ Line Manager.   • If necessary, the Chairperson of DRC may be invited to attend IRC Meeting to facilitate its final recommendation. • IRC will adopt DRC’s recommendation if it is reviewed in order, or decide to make recommendation differently from DRC if it disagrees with DRC’s assessment. In such situation, the IRC has to record the grounds/ reasons for the revision.

32. Final Review by IRC (3) • Voting Decisions • Members of IRC (excluding External Member) are required to cast secret vote on each appraisee after deliberation. Chairperson has a casting vote • A affirmative vote of majority, i.e., 4 out of 7 eligible Members of IRC, regardless of the actual number of Members present, is required in making a decision in support of the application • Members are discouraged to abstain from voting

33. Appraisal & Review Schedule in 2012/13

34. Time Schedule 2012/13 Re-appointment

35. Time Schedule 2012/13 Regular Appraisal • Note 1: Staff members to be invited for submission include: • Those opted to ‘defer’ submission from Sep 2011 to Sep 2012 • Those whose last Regular Appraisal (or other comprehensive appraisal) was conducted in 2010. They may also choose to make submission in Sep 2013 to cover a review period of 3 full years from July 2010 to Jun 2013.

36. Time Schedule 2012/13 Superannuation/ Migration

37. Time Schedule 2012/13 Promotion Note: for Promotion to Associate Professor

38. Thank You!